Most of you know about it. If not, you might want to read this overview. Other overviews of water related interest in here as well. Amazing just how much "paper water" claims are out there in relation to what is available.

Hopefully one of you who is more up on the subject can explain something to me. Why do they want to build these tunnels, starting so far up by Sacramento instead of making a much shorter pull from the Stockton area?

Like I said, I'm not very well versed on the subject but it looks to me like the only reason someone would plan the project this way is because they either want the ability to pull the water before those farmers get a chance to use it, or they want the ability to pull more water out of the delta than it can honestly provide and they are worried about salt water back flow.

clampdaddy wrote:Hopefully one of you who is more up on the subject can explain something to me. Why do they want to build these tunnels, starting so far up by Sacramento instead of making a much shorter pull from the Stockton area?

Like I said, I'm not very well versed on the subject but it looks to me like the only reason someone would plan the project this way is because they either want the ability to pull the water before those farmers get a chance to use it, or they want the ability to pull more water out of the delta than it can honestly provide and they are worried about salt water back flow.

Upstream intake is consistent with the original design

...would avoid some of the fish-kill...but that is an newer rationalization IMO...saltwater intrusion is the big fear...especially as levees fail (think Liberty Island)...do we really think the State is going to pay to drain more islands as they fail?...do we really think those original Dutch engineers thought they were building 'permanent' levees?

"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." - Will Rogers